B1335 - Handgun Ownership and Regulation Bill 2018 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#141
Report 7 months ago
#141
(Original post by mr T 999)
Mr Speaker

There's evidence and statistics showing that banning guns have no effect on crime and I would like to own a gun. Aye
On the contrary, the evidence shows that regulation works. Read:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scienti...ks-saves-lives
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#142
Report 7 months ago
#142
(Original post by Good bloke)
On the contrary, the evidence shows that regulation works. Read:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scienti...ks-saves-lives
And that article does the same as pretty much every other argument in favour: ignores any non gun deaths so as to state the blindly obvious in that fewer guns means fewer gun deaths, thereby ignoring any impact (or lack thereof) it has on wider stats.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#143
Report 7 months ago
#143
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And that article does the same as pretty much every other argument in favour: ignores any non gun deaths so as to state the blindly obvious in that fewer guns means fewer gun deaths, thereby ignoring any impact (or lack thereof) it has on wider stats.
Your thesis appears to be that stricter gun laws would inevitably lead to more murders by the use of other means. If that is so, then I think you have to prove it. In this case you will need to show how freeing up handgun laws in the UK would lead to lower knife deaths, for instance, and that accidental handgun deaths would not occur.

Guns can, far more readily than with any other personal weapons, lead to mass killings, as is demonstrated week in, week out in the USA. There have been very few killing sprees associated with the knife. Guns lead, far more readily than with other weapons, to accidental deaths too.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#144
Report 7 months ago
#144
(Original post by Good bloke)
Your thesis appears to be that stricter gun laws would inevitably lead to more murders by the use of other means. If that is so, then I think you have to prove it. In this case you will need to show how freeing up handgun laws in the UK would lead to lower knife deaths, for instance, and that accidental handgun deaths would not occur.

Guns can, far more readily than with any other personal weapons, lead to mass killings, as is demonstrated week in, week out in the USA. There have been very few killing sprees associated with the knife. Guns lead, far more readily than with other weapons, to accidental deaths too.
See notes in OP, the regulations did nothing in the first place with British homicide rates being for all intents and purposes unchanged (Shipman aside things remained in the small annual variation that is expected when there is no statistically significant change) and what is proposed is tighter regulation than existed pre-1997. One of two things was clearly the case, either gun homicides were rare to begin with or there was a shift in method. In fact we have the stats on just gun homicides specifically post 1997 (see last page) and we can see that nominally homicides were at the same level or higher for a decade.

If you want to talk about mass killings in America after removing gang violence and familicides we get to fairly consistently 3 public mass shootings a year (unaffected by the Assault Weapon Ban) with a steady increase in casualties (although no change in the weapons) which is on a per capita basis over the last decade actually better than several European nations. Further mass shooting frequency doesn't seem to have much of a relationship with ownership rates or restrictions, over the last 50 years there have been more mass shootings in California with it's low ownership and strict regulations than in Texas, even after adjusting for population, likewise New England and New York with their low ownership and tight regulation are worse than Texas, and Georgia and Florida combined barely match either CA or NE+NY and they are both states with fairly high ownership and lax regulation.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#145
Report 7 months ago
#145
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
we get to fairly consistently 3 public mass shootings a year
I think you missed two digits off that number. There were 346 mass shooting in the USA last year.

https://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass...curred-in-2018
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#146
Report 7 months ago
#146
(Original post by Good bloke)
I think you missed two digits off that number. There were 346 mass shooting in the USA last year.

https://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass...curred-in-2018
And that figure includes familicides and gang violence which any person looking for a serious debate should be dismissing just as readily as they would terrorism
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#147
Report 7 months ago
#147
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And that figure includes familicides and gang violence which any person looking for a serious debate should be dismissing just as readily as they would terrorism
Can they? I believe that I have a better chance of escaping from a man with a knife than I do from a man with a gun. The latter can kill people quicker, and from further away, than the former.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#148
Report 7 months ago
#148
(Original post by Good bloke)
Can they? I believe that I have a better chance of escaping from a man with a knife than I do from a man with a gun. The latter can kill people quicker, and from further away, than the former.
The gang bit should give you a clue that they don't exactly abide by the law, also tends to be gang on gang rather than gang on public. As for the familicide side I don't think you're going to do much running if you're asleep or otherwise locked in a room/building with the assailant.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#149
Report 7 months ago
#149
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I don't think you're going to do much running if you're asleep or otherwise locked in a room/building with the assailant.
Perpetrators might try to ensure there are no escapees but they don't always succeed, and a knife victim has a better chance of escape than a gun victim.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#150
Report 7 months ago
#150
(Original post by Good bloke)
Perpetrators might try to ensure there are no escapees but they don't always succeed, and a knife victim has a better chance of escape than a gun victim.
Can you try getting to the point please
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#151
Report 7 months ago
#151
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Can you try getting to the point please
The obvious point is that any sane person would rather live in a country where the idiot next door is highly unlikely to have a gun than one in which he can choose to own one 'for self defence purposes'.

I prefer my cowboys to stay in film studios.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#152
Report 7 months ago
#152
(Original post by Good bloke)
The obvious point is that any sane person would rather live in a country where the idiot next door is highly unlikely to have a gun than one in which he can choose to own one 'for self defence purposes'.

I prefer my cowboys to stay in film studios.
Tell that to the Austrians.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#153
Report 7 months ago
#153
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Tell that to the Austrians.
They must make their own decisions.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#154
Report 7 months ago
#154
(Original post by Good bloke)
They must make their own decisions.
You're accusing them of insanity for not having the same views as you, and they're a safer country than the UK or Australia
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#155
Report 7 months ago
#155
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You're accusing them of insanity for not having the same views as you
No. I am accusing them of insanity for wanting the man in the street to carry guns.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#156
Report 7 months ago
#156
(Original post by Good bloke)
No. I am accusing them of insanity for wanting the man in the street to carry guns.
It's insanity not to want rights to be needlessly infringed?
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#157
Report 7 months ago
#157
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It's insanity not to want rights to be needlessly infringed?
There are clear benefits to society if people do not have the right to carry a gun. Carrying a gun in the UK is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege is rightly very hard to come by and highly restricted. That pleases me a great deal.

Self defence, in the real world, is not an acceptable reason to hold a gun, by the way.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#158
Report 7 months ago
#158
(Original post by Good bloke)
There are clear benefits to society if people do not have the right to carry a gun. Carrying a gun in the UK is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege is rightly very hard to come by and highly restricted. That pleases me a great deal.

Self defence, in the real world, is not an acceptable reason to hold a gun, by the way.
Whether it is an acceptable reason depends on jurisdiction, in the UK it is not, in Austria and the US it is.

You can say there are clear benefits to an unarmed society but what are these benefits? You're going to point to America and say shooting and mass shootings, I retort by pointing to Austria and the various graphs in the notes. Next you'll say "but look at the UK and Australia" and I'l say "sure, no changes to anything in either"
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#159
Report 7 months ago
#159
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
what are these benefits?
The first and most obvious benefit of a society in which nobody can legally own a gun is that nobody can die or be injured from accidental gunshot wounding unless they illegally hold a weapon (in which case they deserve no sympathy). The USA suffers over a thousand such deaths annually, the UK almost none.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#160
Report 7 months ago
#160
(Original post by JoeL1994)
I'd like to see more detailed information on safe storage, and a cap on pricing for psychiatric tests per year. But, the other safeguards are well thought out and there is some compelling evidence.

A tentative aye on what a second reading produces.

(Original post by LPK)
Ah, that's useful to know. Thank you!
Given no other proposed amendments this will be sent to division without a second reading, but there will a small tweak explicitly stating that it is secure storage in accordance with Home Office guidance
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Who is most responsible for your success at university

Mostly me (497)
91.19%
Mostly my university including my lecturers/tutors (48)
8.81%

Watched Threads

View All